00115-14 Hutchins v Wiltshire Times

·Decision of the Complaints Committee 00115-14 Hutchins v Wiltshire Times

Summary of complaint

1. Benjamin Hutchins complained to the Independent Press
Standards Organisation that the Wiltshire Times had breached Clause 1
(Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice in articles headlined “Melksham
teacher banned after sending sexual messages to pupils” (online) and “Sex
pest’s life ban” (in print), published on 5 September 2014.

2. The articles reported that the complainant, a former
teacher, had received a lifetime ban from teaching after having been cautioned
by police for sending sexual messages to a pupil via social media, and found
guilty of unacceptable professional conduct for falsifying coursework.

3. The complainant said that the online headline had
inaccurately suggested he had sent inappropriate messages to several pupils. In
fact, he had only sent them to one student. The article’s assertion that he had
“contacted others via Facebook” also contributed to this misleading impression;
this contact consisted of public messages to pupils about their exam results.

4. The complainant was concerned that the article had not
made clear that he had been dismissed from his post in 2013; he considered that
it implied inaccurately that he had just left teaching. He also said that the
article should have stated that his lifetime ban was issued as a result of both
misdemeanours. He further considered the term “sex pest” to be defamatory, and
an attempt to sensationalise his actions; the use of the term represented a
failure to distinguish between comment and fact.

5. The complainant considered that the photograph used to
illustrate the article was misleading, as it showed him with a moustache, which
he had not worn for a number of years. He also believed that the newspaper had
altered the photograph to enhance the colour of his lips, and complained that
in the caption his surname was misspelt.

6. The newspaper agreed that the online headline was
misleading. It had amended it to replace “pupil” with “pupils” and added the
following footnote: The headline for this article has been amended to read
‘pupil’ from pupils at the request of Benjamin Hutchins. The newspaper had also
added a link to the full report of the hearing of the complainant’s case.

7. It denied that the article was otherwise inaccurate or
misleading; the date of the complainant’s dismissal was contained in the
hearing report linked from the article, the story identified the reasons for
the ban, and it was entitled to focus on the fact that the complainant had sent
inappropriate messages to a pupil. The newspaper did not consider it misleading
to refer to someone who had sent sexual messages to a pupil as a “sex pest”.

8. The newspaper denied that it had manipulated the
photograph. It had corrected the spelling error in the complainant’s name.

Relevant Code Provisions

9. Clause 1 (Accuracy)

i) The press must take care not to publish inaccurate,
misleading or distorted information, including pictures.

ii) A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or
distortion once recognised must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence,
and – where appropriate – an apology published.

iii) The Press, whilst free to be partisan, must
distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.

Findings of the Committee

10. In stating that the complainant had sent sexual messages
to “pupils”, rather than one pupil, the article had misrepresented his
misconduct. The details of the hearing were available to the newspaper, and
indeed the text of the article accurately reported that only one pupil had been
involved. The headline therefore represented a failure by the newspaper to take
care not to publish inaccurate information. This aspect of the complaint under
Clause 1 (i) was upheld. While headlines are considered in context, this does
not excuse significant inaccuracies. The nature of the complainant’s misconduct
was one of the main focuses of the article, and the headline’s
misrepresentation of his actions therefore merited correction under the terms
of Clause 1 (ii).

11. The newspaper had corrected the error, and published a
footnote, noting that an amendment had been made to the article. The Committee
welcome the prompt action taken by the newspaper. Nonetheless, this footnote
attributed the change to a request by the complainant, rather than to an error
on the part of the newspaper. As the correction had not made clear the initial
error, it was not sufficient to meet the requirements of Clause 1 (ii).

12. The Committee noted the complainant’s objection to the
description of him as a “sex pest”, but did not consider that the newspaper’s
characterisation of him in this way was significantly misleading, in the
context of the misconduct he had admitted; this did not constitute a failure to
distinguish between comment, conjecture and fact in breach of Clause 1 (iii).

13. The remaining points were not upheld. The reference to
the complainant’s messages to other pupils was accurate, and the article was
not misleading regarding the chronology of the incidents; it had made clear
that the complainant had been suspended, and “later dismissed”. The article
made clear that the ban related to other incidents beyond the messages, and the
online article had included a link to further details of the hearing.

14. The complainant had speculated that the photograph of
him had been manipulated to add colour to his lips. However, he had provided no
grounds for this. He had not disputed that the photograph depicted him, and it
was not misleading for the newspaper to use an image in which he wore a
moustache. The newspaper had made an error in reporting the complainant’s name.
However, this was corrected swiftly and did not raise a breach of the Code.

Conclusions

15. The complaint was upheld in part, in relation to the
online article.

Remedial Action Required

16. Having partially upheld the complaint under Clause 1,
the Committee considered what remedial action should be required.

17. The Committee considered that, given the nature of the
breach of the Code and of the publication, the appropriate remedy was the
publication of a correction, the nature, extent and prominence of which would
be determined by IPSO.

18. In the Committee’s view, the wording appended to the
article by the newspaper was insufficient remedy to the breach of the Code in
this instance; it did not include a clear acknowledgment of the inaccuracy.

19. In order to remedy the breach of Clause 1, the newspaper
was required to publish a footnote to the online article, the wording of which
should be agreed with IPSO in advance, making clear that the original
headline’s reference to “pupils” had been inaccurate, and that the messages had
been sent to one pupil. In addition, the correction should acknowledge that it
had been published following a ruling by the Independent Press Standards
Organisation.

This website uses cookies that provide necessary site functionality and improve your online experience. By continuing to use this website, you agree to the use of cookies. Our cookies notice provides more information about what cookies we use and how you can change them.